Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />for provisions to insure maximum public access to, <br />and use of the tidelands . . . . As noted by the <br />Supreme Court, the rationale of the subdivision <br />exaction cases is that "subdivider realizes a <br />profit from governmental approval . . . since his <br />land is rendered more valuable . . . in return for <br />this benefit the [government] may require him to <br />dedicate a portion of his land ." (Associated <br />Home Builders, supra, 4 Cal 3d at page 64 ) <br />(Pg.-176, 177). <br />In summary, conditions imposed by a city on a land <br />use approval wall be declared valid if reasonably conceived <br />to fulfill public needs generally emanating from the <br />landowner's proposed use; however, there need be only an <br />indirect relationship between a dedication and a need to <br />which the project contributes. <br />V. DOUBLE TAXATION <br />The developer has often argued that the dedication <br />or payment of fees in return for approval of the project is <br />a tax for public purposes constituting double taxation. in <br />the Associated Bome Builders Association, supra, this issue <br />was raised-byEge� bu 1 erg ante cour re ected it by <br />stating: <br />Double taxation occurs only when *two taxes of the <br />same character are imposed on the same property` <br />for the same purpose, by the same taxing authority <br />within the same jurisdiction during the same taxing <br />period." (Rhyne, Municipal Law, gip. 673.) <br />Obviously the dedication or fee required of the <br />subdivider and the property takes paid by the later <br />residents of the subdivision do not meet this defi- <br />nition. if Associated's claim were valid the prior <br />residents of a community could also claim double <br />taxation since their tax dollars were utilized to <br />purchase and maintain public facilities which will <br />be used by the newcomers who did not contribute to <br />their acquisition. (Associated Rome Builders, <br />su ra, 642) <br />V I . EQUAL PROTECTION <br />Another contention made by subdividers is that <br />usually the state law or city ordinance applies only to <br />subdividers and exempts single lot or apartment house <br />developers. Therefore, the subdivider contends it has <br />been denied the equal protection of the law as required by <br />the 14th Amendment. As part of this contention, the <br />subdivider argues that the occupants of an apartment douse <br />"13- <br />